Guy banned for thinking Bertie lacks credibility..WTF?

seamus

gbh wrote: »

I think yee should get a legal department to be honest or refer to a lawyer everytime there is something you are not sure about...do you have legal training by the way?? and from what institution...

Few of us have legal education. We basically stick to rough legal guidelines that boards.ie has been given by its solicitor and that legally educated boardsies have offered.

I'm assuming this is a libel issue, I haven't read the rest of the thread. Libel is fairly easy to nip in the bud. If you say something about a person which can't be/hasn't been conclusively proven, it's likely to get removed. Simple as that.

If it's the very specific libel that I'm thinking of, then a few other have been here wah-wahhing about it before, including irish1, and claiming that there's some Bertie-centric agenda going on. There's not. There's a boards-centric agenda going on. I.e. we don't want to lose the site.

If you feel you have something groundbreaking you need to say about Bertie, but can't really prove it, go set up your own site and say it there.

gandalf

What Irish1 you were banned from Politics because you are an annoying, whinging twat who doesn't step down and leave something when you are asked to. You were allowed back from a PERMANENT ban under the understanding you would not start with the questioning every decision behavior again. You did not keep your word and the ban was reinstated.

gbh

I said he accepted money as a loan that was intended as a donation....thats what got me banned...

now it seems only OscarBravo has access to what he deleted...so he can clear it all up by posting here what i wrote...leave it up at least for 10 minutes, then delete it again...and if Bertie comes after ya with the Drumcondra mafia then I will post an apology here...

oscarBravo

gbh wrote: »

I said he accepted money as a loan that was intended as a donation....thats what got me banned...

No, that's not what you said.

gbh wrote: »

now it seems only OscarBravo has access to what he deleted...

Every moderator and admin has access to what I deleted.

dlofnep

Stark wrote: »

He was acquitted of the murder charge in a court of law. Therefore, legally, you're spreading falsehoods.

Actually I'm spreading the truth. A biased jury doesn't make it true. Everybody knows if it was a traveller who did it to a settled person, we would be screaming bloody murder.

seamus

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually I'm spreading the truth. A biased jury doesn't make it true. Everybody knows if it was a traveller who did it to a settled person, we would be screaming bloody murder.

What you think the truth is, is irrelevant.

Until someone has been convicted of murder, you can't call them a murderer. That's what a court's view on it will be. End of.

Mr.Micro

I ,Mr.Micro on a ban until to morrow night from the politics boards ,still not quite sure why .The word liar was mentioned,which I did not directly call him, or is it just that Bertie is out of bounds , my posts should have be seen in context and not just latch on to that one word or some subliminal subtext that was perceived .I believe what I stated has been well documented in the press and media and widely accepted in the main ,only this week Fintan O Toole on RTE s Primetime said as much .I have seen blatant racism on the AH ,and even Bertie being called an outright liar only this week ........no bans there ,where is the consistency there?. I am seriously contemplating not bothering to ask the ban be lifted to morrow .Most unfair and inappropriate .My thanks to all the posters who disagreed with my ban.

Villain

gandalf wrote: »

What Irish1 you were banned from Politics because you are an annoying, whinging twat who doesn't step down and leave something when you are asked to. You were allowed back from a PERMANENT ban under the understanding you would not start with the questioning every decision behavior again. You did not keep your word and the ban was reinstated.

You mean I actually read the facts and form my own opinion, shock error someone has a brain of their own! I was allowed back under the condition I wouldn't do what I did in the past i.e. PM mods about decisions and I didn't I discussed the topic in a thread on rules discussion in Politics then I was told by a mod to take the discussion to feedback which I did and two mods continued to discuss it with me here, then Rock Climber jumped in and gave me a perm ban with no reason.

So when I asked for a reason I was told what you said above except well that isn't correct, FACT.

But hey don't let the truth get in your way.

As for the Twat comment well I think the fact that you are ignoring parts of my posts and posting personal abuse says a lot.

gbh

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what you said. Every moderator and admin has access to what I deleted.

Jesus, I'm trying me best here...and I'm not a mod or admin so i can't read it...

hows this...

money that was intended for a donation he took for a loan and put it presumedly into his bank account...at no time did i say it was a bribe, a corrupt payment or anything of that manner...ok? but you misunderstood it as me saying that...ie you have read it totally wrong which can happen when people are not talking face to face, its one of the limitations of sites like this..sometimes one person can read into something wrong...like you assume i'm in a confrontational mode now about this but im actually in a concilatory one..but you can't see that here...as such things as body language, facial expressions are just as important to understanding what someone says...

however there is political implications if he put money in his bank account, under the mattress, in his safe, if it was intended by the person who gave it to him to be spent on electioneering and he didn't ultimately spend it on electioneering...

now that is 90% of what I said..and no im not being evasive about this..if you either pm me the rest or post it on here then it would help...

But if someone asked you to repeat what you said a couple of days ago word for word and stopped you looking at what you wrote do you think you would get it spot on 100% - I doubt it...

and of course now i'll probably get a ban from this forum as well...

GuanYin

Firstly, I don't see how continuing the political debate here will help the situation.

Secondly, I think it's not so much what you said, but the way you said it. For instance, you started off with "The fact is" and you didn't use "presumably" at any stage in your accusation.

Opinions =/= accusations =/= fact.

I'm fairly impartial here, having just arrived on the scene. I think your week (if it is a week) is a fair outcome.

Mr.Micro

Well so much for feedback .I have posted above my grievance and annoyance about being banned for a week..am I in the right forum to receive a reply ?

GuanYin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well so much for feedback .I have posted above my grievance and annoyance about being banned for a week..am I in the right forum to receive a reply ?

Didn't see the post.

Without links I can't comment.

In any case, I'm not willing to undo anything done by a previous mod in, at least not without forum mod consensus.

Mr.Micro

psi wrote: »

Didn't see the post.

Without links I can't comment.

In any case, I'm not willing to undo anything done by a previous mod in, at least not without forum mod consensus.

Thanks for the reply PSI but my week is up to morrow night (I presume )and if I recall correctly ,I did use the word perceived in my "so called accusation",not a phrase I would have called it .As you say you are not in a position to comment,and I was not bringing the political debate to this forum , merely using some of the context to make my point which has gone answered ,as I said earlier so much for feedback.Will it be as difficult to lift the ban ?

Rock Climber

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Thanks for the reply PSI but my week is up to morrow night (I presume )and if I recall correctly ,I did use the word perceived in my "so called accusation",not a phrase I would have called it .As you say you are not in a position to comment,and I was not bringing the political debate to this forum , merely using some of the context to make my point which has gone answered ,as I said earlier so much for feedback.Will it be as difficult to lift the ban ?

Well your ban was for a week so I've absolutely no objection whatsoever to that ban being lifted for you when the week is up which is 8/12/07 at 21.44 pm.In actual fact I've no longer got a say in the lifting of it as such only to clarify when the time is up.

Mr Micro You did however tell me in pm that you were never ever coming back to the politics forum ever again or words to that effect.
Now if I had a penny for every time I heard that one....

In closing I expect this to be my final post on feedback given that it's unlikely that most threads here will interest me.
This one certainly doesn't.

Have fun everyone,I assume it's fun ye are having here right?
Oh forget it

leninbenjamin

there are posts in politics regularly that are well beyond (imo) what Mr.Micro said in terms slander. I reported one the other day yet nothing seemed to be done about it. I really can't understand Micro's ban in view of this...

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

there are posts in politics regularly that are well beyond (imo) what Mr.Micro said in terms slander. I reported one the other day yet nothing seemed to be done about it. I really can't understand Micro's ban in view of this...

Acknowledged.

But only 2 mods remain from back then so you'll have to cut us some slack

leninbenjamin

psi wrote: »

Acknowledged.

But only 2 mods remain from back then so you'll have to cut us some slack

sh*t, actually i didn't notice the change in mods at all...

Dirk Gently

psi wrote: »

Acknowledged.

But only 2 mods remain from back then so you'll have to cut us some slack

ohh, a cabinet reshuffle, hadn't noticed myself.
Welcome to the mad house. I hope you have the patience of a saint

Villain

PSI I don't suppose my ban can be reviewed at the new cabinet meeting?

oscarBravo

Which part of the word "permanent" are you having difficulty with?

Villain

Ah I love the way the way you reply to the posts that you don't have to discuss anything, I suppose a brain is required for that

Mr.Micro

Rock Climber wrote: »

Well your ban was for a week so I've absolutely no objection whatsoever to that ban being lifted for you when the week is up which is 8/12/07 at 21.44 pm.In actual fact I've no longer got a say in the lifting of it as such only to clarify when the time is up.


For the record , and clarity, as I hate to be misquoted and misinterpreted, I wanted the ban lifted as it is an unfair blemish IMO on my sojourn so far on Boards.ie .Also I said "I would be avoiding politics boards in future ,as it was not worth the trouble" .

Rock Climber

Mr.Micro wrote: »

For the record , and clarity, as I hate to be misquoted and misinterpreted, I wanted the ban lifted as it is an unfair blemish IMO on my sojourn so far on Boards.ie .Also I said "I would be avoiding politics boards in future ,as it was not worth the trouble" .

Sigh
For the record,look at the pm that you sent me if you've kept it.I've got it open here in another tab and it says and I quote "My sincere apologies for any offence I may have caused over such an emotive issue. I will avoid the politics boards in future.,not worth the trouble .Regards Mr.Micro"
That did not include a request for unbanning and to anyone would read exactly as I paraphrased ie you were no longer interested in posting on politics.
I think my comment then was fair comment in that if I had a penny for every poster I hear that from who comes back again and again and again I might be able to afford a bigger screen to read their posts... (oh wait I can think of better ways to spend it )
For the record,your ban was part of a zero tolerance approach to the issue of lies or any reference to lies in relation to Mahon and most definitely not meant as any kind of slight.

Regards and best wishes
Rocky

p.s I really realy meant the comment too that ye are all enjoying yourselves here
Now finally(I hope) back to my real life concerns...

Mr.Micro

For the record,your ban was part of a zero tolerance approach to the issue of lies or any reference to lies in relation to Mahon and most definitely not meant as any kind of slight. Quote Rock Climber.

Fair enough then, in conclusion it was nice to get an explanation or at least the reasoning.My appreciation for your reply.As you observed in your post I apologised for any offence that I may have caused .Regards Mr.Micro .

gbh

Some points...

Mods are never impartial...they always favour other mods...

The opinion of a mod is still just the opinion and not objective fact...ie they are not the head of the supreme court yet presume to have the equivalent legal knowledge of the head of the supreme court...you are just the mod of a forum with little if any legal training...so please don't presume to know the law better than everyone else...

most people on the politics forum are smart people...they know the law, they know what is libel and what is not...to repeat word for word what has come out of the tribunal is not libel ok...if so then the newspapers and journalists are committing libel everyday...

And yes what comes out in the tribunal are facts...or if they arent then they are lies...its as simple as that....time will tell if they are facts or lies...none of us are saying or implying they are lies ok...i hope this is not too abstract for the mods...

Time Magazine

gbh wrote: »

Some points...

Here we go.

Mods are never impartial...

That's wrong.

they always favour other mods...

That's wrong. Many mods hold fellow mods to a higher standard than new posters.

The opinion of a mod is still just the opinion and not objective fact

There may be no exclusivity between these two.

ie they are not the head of the supreme court yet presume to have the equivalent legal knowledge of the head of the supreme court

That's wrong.

you are just the mod of a forum with little if any legal training...so please don't presume to know the law better than everyone else

Who says they're presuming to know the law better than everyone else?

most people on the politics forum are smart people...they know the law, they know what is libel and what is not

But surely that's just "their opinion and not objective fact"? Also, you know people can know the law and still break it, right? Also you know it's perfectly acceptable for the owners of this site to take a no-risk policy, right? You also know that Boards' legal advice in regard to other matters has been precisely that of a no-risk one, right?

to repeat word for word what has come out of the tribunal is not libel ok

That's not necessarily true. If the Tribunal were to state "Bertie is a paedophile", would it not be libel to repeat it word for word?

if so then the newspapers and journalists are committing libel everyday

Perhaps they are and if they wish to do so that's their prerogative.

And yes what comes out in the tribunal are facts...or if they arent then they are lies

This is wrong on two counts. First of all, what comes out of the Tribunal will ultimately be the view of Mr. Mahon. This will almost certainly be more opinion than fact. Secondly, there exist several distinctions and mezzanines between "lies" and "facts". The statement "I will father a son" is neither a lie nor a fact; it is an unproven assertion.

its as simple as that

No, it's not.

time will tell if they are facts or lies

Or opinion of a Tribunal.

none of us are saying or implying they are lies ok

That's not true either.

i hope this is not too abstract for the mods

Perhaps not too abstract, but almost certainly too flawed.

Crash

Ibid wrote: »

"Bertie is a paedophile"

I hadn't made a smart ass comment in a while.

That is all.

GuanYin

gbh wrote: »

Some points...

Mods are never impartial...they always favour other mods...

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I have a reputation for not favouring anyone as I have been recently told.

So much so, that one former mod had me on ignore for well over a year because of my disagreements with him on certain forum issues.

If your assertion was correct, such incidents would not happen.

As it happens, mods tend to have a better idea of how the site runs and the workings of the hiarchy, but they don't automatically know better.

So to be frank. I saw what you wrote and I saw what you said you wrote - they don't come close to matching. I also saw the forum rules.

I'm curious, if you maintain you did nothing wrong, why you felt the need to leave out the stronger worded parts of your post in recounting it, so as to make the post seem less offensive (I highlighted those points above).

I'm unsure how long you were banned for, but honestly, if you're trying to rewrite the history of what happened, I think you're on to a poor start about resolving the issue with the mods who can unban you.

My advice: re-read the forum rules, look at what you said - see how it applies to what you said and then if you HONESTLY feel that the rules don't apply to what you said, make a case.

Villain

OscarBravo wrote:

Which part of the word "permanent" are you having difficulty with?

irish1 wrote: »

Ah I love the way the way you reply to the posts that you don't have to discuss anything, I suppose a brain is required for that

OscarBravo wrote:

..

Ah yes he just ignores the posts that he doesn't want to discuss as usual but as I said, a brain.......

Villain

PSI have a read of the thread I linked to earlier and tell me the other Politics mods didn't favour Rock Climber, i.e. they were discussing the issue with me then Rock Climber jumps in and bans me, now instead of telling Rock Climber that they had advised me to start a feedback thread and telling him to lift the ban as I hadn't broke any rule or repeated actions which I was banned before they just backed him and told the admins they would all resign if I was unbanned.

Be neutral and honest and have a read of that and we'll see if you favour other mods.